intellgence....you either have it or you don't

[variant]

I think it's simply a matter of defining terms. "Theism" and "religion" are not necessarily interchangeable. The Bible (your "religious" text) certainly doesn't see it that way:

Why Christianity is NOT a Religion | Philippians1v21

Yeah no.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

Definitions 1 and 2 apply thoroughly.

Christianity had no problem being a religion for the last two eons, just recently when you guys wanted to avoid the negative connotations of the word.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, but the premise of the scenario is that he is the real God, and that your conception of God was false. Is is not possible that you could be wrong in your conception of God?

...spare us your 'fictive' hypothetical scenarios, Archae.

It would be one thing to present a scenario that you yourself believed possible, but it seems almost disingenuous to present--to a Christian-- one which you don't think is even viable. You just dangle it about as a kind of theoretical challenge, as if you were teasing a cat with a fake mouse, a mouse that you know isn't real. Well.....whoopee doo! Thanks for the excercise at our expense.

There is a difference between denial of a particular complex of ideas regarding a divine entity or entities versus denial of the divine altogether. They're not analogous.

So, no, the scenario you keeping harping about is barely relevant to the Theist / Atheist divide. I don't accept it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

...spare us your 'fictive' hypothetical scenarios, Archae.

It would be one thing to present a scenario that you yourself believed possible, but it seems almost disingenuous to present--to a Christian-- one which you don't think is even viable. You just dangle it about as a kind of theoretical challenge, as if you were teasing a cat with a fake mouse, a mouse that you know isn't real. Well.....whoopee doo! Thanks for the excercise at our expense.

There is a difference between denial of a particular complex of ideas regarding a divine entity or entities versus denial of the divine altogether. They're not analogous.

So, no, the scenario you keeping harping about is barely relevant to the Theist / Atheist divide. I don't accept it.

What a strange response. There's no requirement that I believe in order to pose these questions. The purpose of presenting the scenario, as a sort of thought experiment, is to get at the idea that you could be wrong. Is it not possible for you to conceive that you could be wrong? You've never been wrong about anything?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm not sure exactly how to answer, here...I'd say that my conception of God is based on the Bible - in which it is written "I am the one true God". So whatever it is I'm encountering in this scenario had better have very valid reasons why he's not what his book claims he is (love, etc...) yet can still claim to be the "one true God".

Why must he? Is it not conceivable that you read the wrong book, or that the book got it wrong?

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

Why must he? Is it not conceivable that you read the wrong book, or that the book got it wrong?

Let me try to explain why this is such a nonsensical concept.

The Bible says God is Truth, so if there were a see-able entity claiming that the Bible got it wrong, then God is not Truth. By that definition of terms, this entity shouldn't exist. Nor should its concept of heaven or hell. Those are in the Bible, and the Bible is apparently wrong. In this way, the entity would be denying its own existence.

You might as well ask "what if the Bible wasn't the Bible?"

So, you could pick and choose certain concepts of the Bible as truth, but the Bible is to be studied, understood, and metabolized as a whole.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Let me try to explain why this is such a nonsensical concept.

The Bible says God is Truth, so if there were a see-able entity claiming that the Bible got it wrong, then God is not Truth. By that definition of terms, this entity shouldn't exist. Nor should its concept of heaven or hell. Those are in the Bible, and the Bible is apparently wrong. In this way, the entity would be denying its own existence.

You might as well ask "what if the Bible wasn't the Bible?"

You're missing another possibility: the Bible got it wrong. Is that not conceivable to you?

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

I...I don't know how else to explain what I just explained to you...I apologize.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I...I don't know how else to explain what I just explained to you...I apologize.

Well, you're not answering the question. Your answer is predicated entirely on the Bible being true, no matter what. Even if God himself told you that it wasn't true, that it was a fabrication meant to fool you, you would still maintain that it was true, and call God a liar.

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

Well, you're not answering the question. Your answer is predicated entirely on the Bible being true, no matter what. Even if God himself told you that it wasn't true, that it was a fabrication meant to fool you, you would still maintain that it was true, and call God a liar.

But you see, you're trying to force a false dichotomy here...a dilemma, of sorts:

The Bible says there is truth. This entity is saying that the Bible is all a fabrication. Well, let's look at this more closely:

1. Either there is truth or there is no truth.
2. Assume there is no truth.
3. Yet, if there is no truth, then either this statement is true or false.
4. Assume the statement is false.
5. The statement is that the statement is false, and the statement indeed is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
6. #4 has been shown to lead to a contradiction.
7. The statement is true.
8. A contradiction has been reached against #2.
9. Therefore, there must be truth.
10. If there is truth, then there must be a ground of Truth, and we call the Truth God. This agrees with the Bible. There can't be God and not-God at the same time.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

But you see, you're trying to force a false dichotomy here...a dilemma, of sorts:

The Bible says there is truth. This entity is saying that the Bible is all a fabrication. Well, let's look at this more closely:

1. Either there is truth or there is no truth.
2. Assume there is no truth.
3. Yet, if there is no truth, then either this statement is true or false.
4. Assume the statement is false.
5. The statement is that the statement is false, and the statement indeed is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
6. #4 has been shown to lead to a contradiction.
7. The statement is true.
8. A contradiction has been reached against #2.
9. Therefore, there must be truth.
10. If there is truth, then there must be a ground of Truth, and we call the Truth God. This agrees with the Bible. There can't be God and not-God at the same time.

You're confusing the issue, or missing the forest for the trees. The issue is that, in this hypothetical, the Bible's claims about God are not true.

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

You're confusing the issue, or missing the forest for the trees. The issue is that, in this hypothetical, the Bible's claims about God are not true.

Again...the "Bible's claims about God" are that He is the one true God. If God Himself were to show up and deny that claim, He would be denying His own existence.

If God were to say "The Bible is wrong, my son...I am not the one true God," then that would mean that something else is. Because the implication is that gods exist, obviously, as I'm apparently looking at one, but it is saying it is not the right one. In which case, the Bible is irrelevant, and this really boils down to "whatiff you're following the wrong religion," which is an entirely different topic altogether.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Again...the "Bible's claims about God" are that He is the one true God. If God Himself were to show up and deny that claim, He would be denying His own existence.

No, he wouldn't. He would be saying that the Bible's claims about him, his personality and his intentions, were wrong. Why is it so difficult to contemplate that the Bible might be wrong in some of its claims? You seem incredulous at the very notion.

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

No, he wouldn't. He would be saying that the Bible's claims about him, his personality and his intentions, were wrong. Why is it so difficult to contemplate that the Bible might be wrong in some of its claims? You seem incredulous at the very notion.

"Some of its claims"? Like which claims? Like the claim that He exists is a true statement, but the claim that He is good is not? Then He would also be claiming He's evil, which means that good exists. Thus, I would ask Him what He would define as "good".

 

[variant]

"Some of its claims"? Like which claims? Like the claim that He exists is a true statement, but the claim that He is good is not? Then He would also be claiming He's evil, which means that good exists. Thus, I would ask Him what He would define as "good".

OK, so the one true God shows up and says "Yeah I'm the God that created the universe, and I am the only one, but I never talked to Abraham he made all that up, and Jesus was a fraud."

This would not be the God described in the Bible.

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

OK, so the one true God shows up and says "Yeah I'm the God that created the universe, and I am the only one, but I never talked to Abraham he made all that up, and Jesus was a fraud."

This would not be the God described in the Bible.

You do realize this opens up way too many more questions, don't you?

So, if Jesus was a fraud, that implies He did exist. So the Bible wasn't wrong about that. You never said "there was never a Jesus". This means that everything Jesus said was a lie. There's no such thing as salvation through faith. Furthermore, everything about Abraham was a lie as well, so Jesus is not a descendent of that bloodline. Therefore, there's no such thing as a Jew. So who are all these people claiming to be Jewish if they're not Jewish? And what determines a Gentile?

Much of the Old Testament talks of the eventual coming of a Savior. So, if Jesus is/was not the Savior, who is? Or is that made up as well? Let's assume it is:
Is the very mention of a Savior in the Old Testament also a lie? Because, if that's the case, this deity had no intention of demonstrating love, forgiveness, or mercy. Those things are good, and this deity is evil.

So, again, I would ask "If good things are not good in your eyes, then what is?"

Getting back to Abraham and Jesus, the OT mentions the imputation of Mosaic Law to the client nation of Israel - the Jews. But Abraham made all that up, so there was never a Mosaic Law, either. In fact, everything regarding Law was just made up. This god evidently had zero interest in concepts such as respect for your fellow man among many others. How about lying? If the Bible is wrong, then lying is okay. This deity could be lying to me right now. How would I even know?

However, Jesus came to fulfill this Law, and talked of salvation through faith alone in Christ alone. But Jesus was a fraud as well, so He must've been just talking complete and utter gibberish. And somehow, there are Jews, there is law, there is love, and there is a difference between good and evil.

There's more...a lot more.

It shouldn't take much thinking to realize how ridiculous of a notion this is...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Archae,

What a strange response. There's no requirement that I believe in order to pose these questions.

Sure. I agree that you don't have to believe in order to be justified in posing questions or hypothetical scenarios; and if along with all of that you have Skepticism as your entry point for discussion, then that is fine and well. However, what I am specifically addressing, and targeting, is an aspect within the structure of your hypothetical scenario, one which I find to be faulty and which, if I am correct, limits its usefulness and efficacy.

The purpose of presenting the scenario, as a sort of thought experiment, is to get at the idea that you could be wrong. Is it not possible for you to conceive that you could be wrong? You've never been wrong about anything?

Yes, I can "conceive" of being wrong, as any good philosopher would do, and I by no means make any claim to be infallible regarding my own cognitive and emotive adherence to Christianity. Therefore, if the purpose of your scenario is ‘merely’ to bring up this consideration to a Christian’s attention, then your scenario succeeds. But then, my response is, “So what?!”

 

[variant]

You do realize this opens up way too many more questions, don't you?

Well yeah.

So, if Jesus was a fraud, that implies He did exist. So the Bible wasn't wrong about that. You never said "there was never a Jesus". This means that everything Jesus said was a lie.

This doesn't follow. Jesus was free to be right about some things and be an overall fraud.

There's no such thing as salvation through faith. Furthermore, everything about Abraham was a lie as well, so Jesus is not a descendent of that bloodline. Therefore, there's no such thing as a Jew. So who are all these people claiming to be Jewish if they're not Jewish? And what determines a Gentile?

I said that God says he never talked to Abraham, not that Abraham did not think he did.

Abraham would still found Judaism and there still would be Jews it would just be founded on lies/incorrect info.

Islam and Mormonism for instance still exist even if they are founded upon incorrect information or lies.

Much of the Old Testament talks of the eventual coming of a Savior. So, if Jesus is/was not the Savior, who is? Or is that made up as well? Let's assume it is:

Is the very mention of a Savior in the Old Testament also a lie? Because, if that's the case, this deity had no intention of demonstrating love, forgiveness, or mercy. Those things are good, and this deity is evil.

So, again, I would ask "If good things are not good in your eyes, then what is?"

The Bible is pretty much invalid in the example given so using it to Judge an actual God (right in front of you) is a bit odd.

I did not say that the God right in front of you had no intention of demonstrating love or anything of the sort so that seems to just be your odd assumption.

Getting back to Abraham and Jesus, the OT mentions the imputation of Mosaic Law to the client nation of Israel - the Jews. But Abraham made all that up, so there was never a Mosaic Law, either. In fact, everything regarding Law was just made up. This god evidently had zero interest in concepts such as respect for your fellow man among many others. How about lying? If the Bible is wrong, then lying is okay. This deity could be lying to me right now. How would I even know?

However, Jesus came to fulfill this Law, and talked of salvation through faith alone in Christ alone. But Jesus was a fraud as well, so He must've been just talking complete and utter gibberish. And somehow, there are Jews, there is law, there is love, and there is a difference between good and evil.

There's more...a lot more.

It shouldn't take much thinking to realize how ridiculous of a notion this is...

You just don't seem to be capable of even imagining a universe where the Bible isn't true but contains a God.

This is your limitation. You should try to set it aside if you are going to enter into hypothetical discussions that involve those conditions.

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

This doesn't follow. Jesus was free to be right about some things and be an overall fraud.

This is your hypothetical situation, not mine...you need to define what Jesus was right about, and what He wasn't. You can't expect me to understand your rules if you don't establish them properly. You still agree that there was a Jesus. Jesus said many things.

I said that God says he never talked to Abraham, not that Abraham did not think he did.

So, God never talked to Abraham, but Abraham was somehow conscious of the concept of a god...SO much so, that he decided to begin an entire race of people based on this "dream" of a god derived from no outside influence whatsoever. Or do you mean to say that Abraham could see God, but not speak with Him? How did he know it was God?

Abraham would still found Judaism and there still would be Jews it would just be founded on lies/incorrect info.

What was Abraham's motivation for this?

Islam and Mormonism for instance still exist even if they are founded upon incorrect information or lies.

Let's not start bringing up other faiths...

The Bible is pretty much invalid in the example given so using it to Judge an actual God (right in front of you) is a bit odd.

Well, the Bible speaks of one true God. Here's a deity in my face claiming to be that God. That statement alone validates the Bible. "I'm the one true God, but that one book isn't talking about me when it states that there exists a one true God." For the third time, this deity is denying its very existence. Or, it's denying the truth of its existence:

The Bible says truth is "X"
The deity says "I am X, but I am not truth"
"X" exists, says the deity, but "X" is not truth.
Therefore, it is false. "There is truth, but there is not truth" makes no sense.

I did not say that the God right in front of you had no intention of demonstrating love or anything of the sort so that seems to just be your odd assumption.

Obviously, I have an idea of the concept of "love", so love exists. It is not some "odd assumption" that something claiming to be God yet denying extremely vital parts to the book which speaks of Him would not be malevolent. Love is patient, love is kind, love is forgiveness...so says the Bible. Which of those are true, and which are not? You have to understand that in this scenario, I'm still an adherent of Bible doctrine. This is what I will use to determine whether or not this thing I'm looking at is the one true GOD. So far, this deity isn't making a very good case for itself...it is saying that certain things are true, and others are not, yet it it incapable of providing me with sufficient information as to WHAT the truth IS. If this deity says that love is impatient, unkind, and unforgiving, then hatred must be the opposite of these. So why has mankind been using the incorrect terms? Is hatred then "good"? Shall we mix them up? Is love impatient and unforgiving, yet kind? How is that logical?

You just don't seem to be capable of even imagining a universe where the Bible isn't true but contains a God.

That's because you haven't built any sort of universe which has an established truth. Your scenario shows me a deity that claims to be the god of the Bible, but the Bible is not truth. You're not making sense.

This is your limitation. You should try to set it aside if you are going to enter into hypothetical discussions that involve those conditions.

You bind me to unestablished rules in a hypothetical scenario that you invented, and then tell me that it is due to my own limitation that I cannot understand your scenario.

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

P.S...is that your kitty? He's cute...

 

[paul becke]

The original OP was more of a vent, fueled off feelings. It definitely came off as immature, but I had to get it off my chest. I still think it had truth in it, pertaining to myself, it just came out in a harsh way. To really discuss these issues you need to have a solid background in science, philosophy, and mathematics. I have a basic understanding of all, maybe besides math (I shied away from calculus when in college).

There are plenty of people here who understand these difficult concepts, so I can't go speaking on anyone's behalf besides myself; this has to do with my own incompetence.

I just find it odd with the lack of questions that are can be answered, and the leaps and bounds that need to gone through to establish the most miniscule amount of truth.

I think it may be time to give up on these questions of origins I have. Once you think you have some kind of answer, you read something else, and have to start right back over. It's really not worth thinking about, it's just an endless cycle of frustration lol.

In the meanwhile people think they have the answers, and belittle each other because they have different opinions/beliefs. I don't know what I have found so enjoyable in this

I can't open the link for some reason, but though you sound extremely gullible, I'm sure you're too intelligent to really believe you need to know all the details to grasp the big picture. No matter how big the hot-shot, they only need to get their primary hypothesis, their basic assumption, wrong and it amounts to so much nonsense. Maybe you should study metaphysics.

In fact, the more fundamental the truths the simpler they are. Look at the equation, E = MC2 and its implications. Most atheist professors (!) couldn't tell their backsides from a hole in the ground. The thing is, they have a fundamentalist 'a priori' religious world view. In a word: 'scientism'; the so-called, 'Promissory Note'! One day, scientist will understand everything! When the can't even create the simplest single cell, such as an E-Coli microbe, which has been discovered to be of awesome complexity, a vast factory more sophisticated than scientists today could even dream of fashioning. They are actually the enemies science, as Ricard Lewontin put it, adding: 'We mustn't let God get a foot in the door'.

Just reading Wiki write-ups quantum physics, Niels Bohr and Max Planck make it clear that consciousness is prior to matter, and that was discovered 80 plus years ago, but the atheist Establishment don't want to know - even though its been proved in multiple ways mathematically, to goodness knows how many decimal places. Matter at the quantum level is rife with non-locality - particles from beyond space-time.

There is also an amusing little YouTube video-clip, in which John Lennox explains the mind/matter issue to an atheist professor at a dinner.

I think you've been disingenuous, casting yourself as a simpleton, because to think you could get away with it, thereby casting atheist 'science' as something extra special, you really must be more simple than you realise.